The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Special Report from the European Ombudsman to the European Parliament following the draft recommendation to the Council of the European Union in complaint 2395/2003/GG,

–   having regard to Article 1 of the EU Treaty,

–   having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents(1),

–   having regard to Article 255 of the EC Treaty concerning access to documents of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission,

–   having regard to Articles 195 and 207 of the EC Treaty,

–   having regard to the Laeken Declaration on the future of the European Union(2),

–   having regard to the Presidency Conclusions of the Seville European Council of 21 and 22 June 2002,

–   having regard to Article 3(7) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman(3),

–   having regard to Rules 45 and 195(3) of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Petitions (A6-0056/2006),

A.   whereas Article 195 of the EC Treaty empowers the European Ombudsman to receive complaints from any citizen of the Union concerning instances of maladministration in the activities of the Community institutions or bodies,

B.   whereas the complainants in complaint 2395/2003/GG to the European Ombudsman alleged that meetings of the Council when acting in its legislative capacity are not consistent with Article 1(2) of the EU Treaty and are only open to the extent provided for in Articles 8 and 9 of the Council's Rules of Procedure of 22 July 2002, subsequently amended on 22 March 2004(4),

C.   whereas the complainants considered that meetings of the Council acting in its legislative capacity should be public and requested a change in the Council's Rules of Procedure to that effect,

D.   whereas, under Article 12(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and Article 7 of the Council's Rules of Procedure, as amended, the Council acts in its legislative capacity within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 207(3) of the EC Treaty when it adopts rules which are legally binding in or for the Member States, by means of regulations, directives, framework decisions or decisions, on the basis of the relevant provisions of the Treaties, with the exception of discussions leading to the adoption of internal measures, administrative or budgetary acts, acts concerning inter-institutional or international relations or non-binding acts (such as conclusions, recommendations or resolutions),

E.   whereas, according to the above definition of its legislative activity, the Council's non-legislative activity accounts for a far smaller proportion than its legislative activity, and whereas transparency should accordingly be the rule in respect of its deliberations, confidentiality applying only to its non-legislative activity, where appropriate,

F.   whereas, pursuant to Article 1(2) of the EU Treaty, decisions in the EU should be taken "as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizens",

G.   whereas, on 19 November 2003, Mr Solana, the Council's Secretary General, in his reply to the complainants' open letter stated that opening up the Council's legislative deliberations to the public was an issue that found the very widest support,

H.   whereas the Council, in its reply to the Ombudsman, acknowledged that the principle of openness laid down inter alia in Article 1(2) of the EU Treaty is of great importance,

I.   whereas the Council, in its Rules of Procedure, as amended in 2004, introduced rules that provide for greater openness as regards the meetings in which it acts in its legislative capacity,

J.   whereas, in October 2004, the Member States signed the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, which contains an express provision to the effect that the Council is to meet in public when considering and voting on draft legislative acts,

K.   whereas, in its reply to specific questions from the Ombudsman, the Council did not mention any obstacles to the implementation of the amendment of its Rules of Procedure, as requested by the complainants, nor any principles or aims of a higher order that would entitle it to refuse to open to the public the meetings in which it acts in its legislative capacity, but contended that the adoption of its Rules of Procedure was a political and institutional matter to be decided upon by the Council itself,

L.   whereas, in his Annual Report for 1997(5), the European Ombudsman considered that maladministration occurs when a public body fails to act in accordance with a rule or principle which is binding upon it,

M.   whereas the Ombudsman concluded that the fact that the Council refused to decide to meet publicly whenever it acts in its legislative capacity without giving good reasons for that refusal was an instance of maladministration,

N.   whereas, in his draft recommendation to the Council pursuant to Article 3(6) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman, the Ombudsman stated that: "The Council of the European Union should review its refusal to decide to meet publicly whenever it is acting in its legislative capacity"; whereas, in his Special Report, the Ombudsman reiterated his recommendation to the Council and suggested that the European Parliament consider adopting his recommendation as a resolution,

O.   whereas, in particular when the Council adopts acts as "A-points", the actual debate and legislative work is done by Permanent Representatives Committee (COREPER) and the acts in question are merely approved by the Council,

P.   whereas the Council also acts in its legislative capacity in the meetings of the conciliation committees,

Q.   whereas the accountability and public responsibility of ministers require that Member States' positions and votes in the Council be known to the public,

R.   whereas the two legislative branches of the EU still work on the basis of partially different sets of information; whereas the documents held by Parliament are in general public, while the Council often works also on the basis of classified documents and information, including when it considers certain questions which require adoption under the codecision procedure,

S.   whereas the UK Presidency made two alternative proposals to the Council with the aim of responding to the Ombudsman's recommendations, one of which would have involved amending the Council's Rules of Procedure, while the other merely sought to improve transparency within the scope of the existing rules,

T.   whereas the Council subsequently chose not to amend its Rules of Procedure,

1.  Εndorses the European Ombudsman's recommendation to the Council;

2.  Recalls that

3.  Recalls that, given the definition of legislative activity contained in Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and in the Council's Rules of Procedure, the principle of transparency should as a matter of urgency be made to apply not only to Council deliberations with Parliament under the codecision procedure but also to every other case where Parliament is involved, including straightforward consultation, and wherever it adopts acts which may affect individual rights and freedoms, as is the case with acts falling under the third pillar;

4.  Regrets the absence of progress in these areas and the Council's own silence on the matter in its Conclusions of 22 December 2005;

5.  Considers it unacceptable that the EU's most important law-making body still meets behind closed doors when acting as legislator;

6.  Points out that the principles of multi-level governance in the EU are the principles of good governance: participation, transparency, accountability, efficiency and cohesion;

7.  Is of the opinion that, at a time when the EU sees itself as a promoter of democratisation and accountability, the Council should respond to the calls for greater transparency coming from parliaments, civil society and the general public;

8.  Believes that it is not only a matter of principle that legislative bodies should meet in public, but that it is also of direct relevance to the efforts of the European Parliament and national parliaments, as the directly elected representatives of European citizens, to fulfil their scrutiny role;

9.  Considers that it is of the utmost importance for national parliaments to be able to hold their governments and ministers to account; is of the opinion that this cannot be done effectively if it is unclear how ministers have acted and voted in the Council and on what information their decisions were based;

10.  Believes that the recent developments in connection with the debate surrounding the ratification process of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe have illustrated clearly that European citizens want the European decision-making process to be more open;

11.  Believes that meeting in public would make the Council's work both more transparent and more relevant to European citizens and would increase the public's confidence in the way the European Union and its representatives work;

12.  Is convinced that greater openness will lead to the ministers of Member State governments shouldering greater collective responsibility, and that it will enhance the legitimacy of the Council's decisions in the eyes of the public and also promote and intensify public discussion on European matters;

13.  Calls on the Council further to amend its Rules of Procedure and change its working methods so that the meetings in which it acts in its legislative capacity are open and accessible to the public;

14.  Considers that meetings of COREPER are an essential part of the legislative deliberations of the Council and that, therefore, they should be covered by the rules on openness; considers that the Council should take its decisions by a formal vote and not only by approval;

15.  Recalls that the Council is also acting in its legislative capacity when participating in conciliation procedures;

16.  Notes that, at present, preparatory documents for items on Council meeting agendas are not accessible to the public; stresses that, in any adapted Rules of Procedure, the Council should clearly specify the classification and hierarchy of such documents and make them accessible to the public;

17.  Welcomes the Council Conclusions of 22 December 2005 as a step in the right direction, but regrets that the Council did not follow the Ombudsman's recommendation to amend its Rules of Procedure;

18.  Recalls that an amendment of the Council's Rules of Procedure requires the support of thirteen of the twenty-five Member States;

19.  Considers that, since all Member State governments have signed the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, agreement on an amendment of the Council's Rules of Procedure should not meet with opposition, as the principle has already been politically accepted by all Member State governments;

20.  Stresses that the European Parliament has fully endorsed the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe and the efforts to bring it into force; stresses that an amendment of the Council's Rules of Procedure should not be seen as a substitute for all or parts of the aforementioned Treaty but as a long overdue adaptation to European reality and institutional equality in law-making in the European Union;

21.  Takes the view that the methods of publicising Council meetings as described in its Conclusions of 22 December 2005 are insufficient to guarantee the necessary openness and that it is indispensable that representatives of the public and the media are in fact given access to the meetings;

22.  Calls on the Council to take all measures needed to make the meetings in which it is acting in its legislative capacity open and accessible to the public; requests the Council also to broadcast, including on the Internet, its public meetings and to provide the dates and agendas of those meetings in good time and issue official transcripts thereof in all official languages of the European Union;

23.  Urges the Council to adopt a common approach regarding the implementation of the European Union Code of Good Administrative Behaviour as adopted by the European Parliament on 6 September 2001(6);

24.  Suggests to the Council the launch of a pilot project on "more transparent decision-making", wherein one or more topical legislative issues would be discussed in a fully open and accessible Council meeting, with special emphasis being laid on explaining the procedures followed and decisions made, so that they would be easier for citizens to understand;

25.  Calls on the Presidency, the members of the Council and the Commission to propose issues or subjects for such an open debate under Article 8(3) of the Council's Rules of Procedure;

26.  Calls on the Presidency-in-Office of the Council as a matter of priority to put the issue of opening Council meetings to the public on the agenda of the European Council and to make a solemn commitment on 9 May 2006 to immediately amend the Council's Rules of Procedure and to review Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, in agreement with the European Parliament, by the end of 2006;

27.  Calls on all interested parties to bring maximum pressure to bear on the Council in order to persuade it to follow the Ombudsman's recommendation and adapt its Rules of Procedure;

28.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the European Ombudsman and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

(1) OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43. (2) Annex I to the Presidency Conclusions of the European Council of Laeken of 14 and 15 December 2001. (3) OJ L 113, 4.5.1994, p. 15. (4) OJ L 106, 15.4.2004, p. 22. (5) http://www.euro-ombudsman.eu.int/report97/pdf/en/rap97_en.pdf (6) OJ C 72 E, 21.3.2002, p. 331.